GUWAHATI: Guwahati resident Raj Acharjee has raised serious concerns over caste-based discrimination in city temples after his marriage ceremony was denied at Basistha Temple, despite possessing a legal marriage certificate. His experience sheds light on how archaic traditions continue to override constitutional rights, even in modern India.
ALSO READ: NCW Summons Elvish Yadav Over Racist Remarks Against Chum Darang
In December 2024, Acharjee, a resident of Lalganesh, booked a date at Basistha Temple to solemnise his wedding on March 3, 2025. The temple priest at the time noted his details and informed him that a court marriage certificate was mandatory for the rituals to proceed. Acharjee complied with this requirement, completing his court marriage on January 20, 2025, with the full approval of both families.
However, upon returning to the temple on February 13 to submit the certificate, he encountered a different priest, who, after reviewing his documents, flatly refused to conduct the wedding rituals. The reason? Caste differences—Acharjee, a Brahmin, had married a Kayastha.
“When I questioned why they hadn't informed me earlier, despite having my contact details, they claimed the person who took my booking was new and unaware of this ‘caste rule,’” Acharjee mentioned.
Seeking accountability, he requested a written statement confirming the temple’s refusal based on caste differences. The priests, however, declined, knowing that such an admission would spark public outrage. Instead, they casually advised him to find another temple.
Speaking to GPlus, a priest from Basistha Temple stated, “There was some misinterpretation about the surname and the caste. Later, when the topic was discussed within the committee, the decision was taken not to perform their marriage on the premises. It is an age-old tradition not to entertain such marriages, and we have no authority to stand against such decisions.”
Unfortunately, Basistha Temple was not the only institution enforcing such caste-based exclusion. Acharjee approached other prominent temples, including Kamakhya and Sukreshwar, only to receive the same response. His experience raises a fundamental question—if the law permits inter-caste marriages, why do religious institutions refuse to honour them?
In a country where caste discrimination is legally prohibited under Article 15 of the Constitution, the refusal to perform a wedding based on caste lines exposes a significant gap between law and societal practices. It also calls into question the role of religious institutions in upholding equality and inclusivity.
“This experience has been deeply disappointing and disheartening,” Acharjee expressed. “If two consenting Hindu adults, with parental approval and a legal marriage certificate, cannot have their wedding rituals performed at a temple, then where does the institution of faith stand?”
His ordeal has ignited discussions on the continued grip of casteism within religious spaces, prompting calls for reforms that ensure temples adhere to constitutional principles rather than outdated traditions. While temples continue to operate under internal customs, the issue underscores the need for broader debates on balancing religious practices with legal and social progress.
As inter-caste marriages become more common, the question remains—who will hold these institutions accountable when the law itself upholds such unions? Until a clear stance is taken, many couples like Acharjee will continue to face hurdles in seeking religious validation for their legally recognised marriages.
